The other reason I was initially confused, but reading this thread helped, is that by presence of bones in the cave they don’t just mean that there aren’t any bones lying around, brought in by cavemen or bears dying in the cave. They imply that the cave is basically not accessible normally and what would be found in it (bones, fossils etc), if there was anything, can only come from the time when those mountains were formed. I think… Maybe that was obvious for some people.
The original sentence is consistent with the assertion that the mountains had formed before the first boney ancestors of dinosaurs evolved. This is also consistent with the presented timeline.
The correction would mean that the mountains may be older or younger than dinosaurs, because they are only older than bones, and the article is deafeningly silent on the issue of whether dinosaurs had bones.
It’s a failure of literacy on the poster’s part, hence the downvotes.
“The mountains aren’t just older than dinosaurs” implies that they are older than dinosaurs but not not only dinosaurs. But I’d be lying if I said I never skipped words sometimes, so whatever.
It’s a failure of literacy on the poster’s part, hence the downvotes.
But he’s clearly being tongue-in-cheek? Is it time to bring the /s to lemmy?
Dang I didn’t even notice that logical inconsistency until you pointed it out. It should say “The mountains aren’t just older than dinosaurs.”
Of course you’re getting downvoted to hell because everyone either didn’t slow down to read it more carefully or can’t understand sarcasm.
deleted by creator
The other reason I was initially confused, but reading this thread helped, is that by presence of bones in the cave they don’t just mean that there aren’t any bones lying around, brought in by cavemen or bears dying in the cave. They imply that the cave is basically not accessible normally and what would be found in it (bones, fossils etc), if there was anything, can only come from the time when those mountains were formed. I think… Maybe that was obvious for some people.
The original sentence is consistent with the assertion that the mountains had formed before the first boney ancestors of dinosaurs evolved. This is also consistent with the presented timeline.
The correction would mean that the mountains may be older or younger than dinosaurs, because they are only older than bones, and the article is deafeningly silent on the issue of whether dinosaurs had bones.
It’s a failure of literacy on the poster’s part, hence the downvotes.
“The mountains aren’t just older than dinosaurs” implies that they are older than dinosaurs but not not only dinosaurs. But I’d be lying if I said I never skipped words sometimes, so whatever.
But he’s clearly being tongue-in-cheek? Is it time to bring the /s to lemmy?